CHITRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Chitra Srivastava who is working as Secretary to the Head, Human Resource Department of respondent No. 3 impugns her transfer to Bhopal as a mala fide one. Petitioner has sought the following relief:-

(2.) Notice to show cause was issued on 12.11.2003 and in the meanwhile impugned order of transfer dated 1.11.2003, Annexure P-7, transferring the petitioner to Bhopal, was stayed. It is stated that the petitioner is mother of two children and is attending also to her sick husband, who had undergone a neurosurgery and is not well. The impugned order is said to be mala fide one. Petitioner is being made to suffer because of the disputes of respondent No. 1 with another Steno Arifa Nauman's husband, who is Secretary of the Union of respondent No. 3. The present transfer order, it is urged by counsel, has been passed to some-how canvass that the case of Arifa Nauman, who was transferred to Aurangabad was not a solitary one. Petitioner, it is stated, has been made a scape-goat.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pradeep Gupta submitted that the Standing Orders do not contain any power to transfer. He submits that the Standing Orders have primacy over the individual contract and resort to the latter can be had if there were no Standing Orders. He seeks to draw support from provisions of sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein in the case of pending proceedings of conciliation before Conciliation Officer or Board or pending proceedings before Labour Court, protection is provided to the concerned workmen against alteration of conditions of service or from discharge or dismissal, except with permission of Authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 carves out an exception for alteration of conditions of service unconnected with the dispute in accordance with Standing Orders and where there are no Standing Orders, in accordance with the terms of contract. On the same analogy it is urged that where there are no standing orders applicable, the contract between the parties could be resorted to. It is accordingly urged that as transfer is not permitted under the standing orders the same would govern.